Abstract

This paper examines issues related to the definition and
study of serial murder. It examines definitional issues
such as the notion that serialists are male, the notion that
the killings are not for profit, the claim that the killers
and the victims are strangers, and the conception of the
victims as powerless. It examines methodological issues
such as problems with both quantitative and qualitative
data, and the creation of serial killer typologies. The
paper argues that reliance upon narrow definitions,
questionable data gathering, and the creation of typologies
based on these definitions and data distort the analysis of
serial murder and serial murderers. Suggestions are made
for improving the scholarly study of serial murder

The image of Jack the Ripper has captured the
popular imagination for more than a century. His exploits have
been the focus of innumerable films, television shows, books and
newspaper features. Other accounts of serial murder, some
fictional, some about real killers, fuel an insatiable public
appetite for tales of gruesome murder. In the process the media
often creates a distorted image of serial murder and serial
murderers. As Jenkins (1994) has argued, the end result is an
image of the serial murderer as an uncontrollable monster.

The media, however, are not alone in fostering this image.
Dietz (1996) has suggested that scholarly investigation also plays
a role in creating the stereotype. In this paper, we examine how
three aspects of scholarly research help perpetuate the stereotype.
We examine the definition, the research techniques, and the
typologies used in the study of serial murder.

The Definition

Egger's (1990)1 frequently cited (Geberth and Turco 1997;
Keeney and Heide 1994; McKenzie 1995) definition of serial murder
provides a convenient point to begin our discussion. Egger says a
series of killings may be classified as serial murder when:

...one or more individuals (males, in most
known cases) commits a second murder and/or subsequent
murder; is relationshipless (no prior relationship
between victim and attacker); is at a different time and
has no connection to the initial murder; and is usually
committed in a different geographic location. Further,
the motive is not for material gain and is believed to be
for the murderer’s desire to have power over his victim.
Victims may have symbolic value and are perceived to be
prestigeless and in most instances are unable to defend
themselves or alert others to their plight, or are
perceived as powerless given their situation in time,
place or status within their immediate surroundings (such
as vagrants, prostitutes, migrant workers, homosexuals,
missing children, and single and often elderly women).
(1990:4).

While each component of this definition is open to
challenge, we focus on just four aspects. We show how
(1) the notion that the killers are male, (2) the
assumption that they kill mostly strangers, (3) the
notion that they don't kill for financial gain, (4) and
the notion that their victims are powerless people have
contributed to the stereotype.

The Killers Are Male

While some researchers (Egger 1990; Leyton 1986) argue that
the small number of female serialists makes systematic analysis of
female serialists impractical or even impossible, other analysts
have limited their research in this way for theoretical and/or
ideological reasons. For example, to show how patriarchal
structures contribute to violence against women, some radical
feminists explicitly limit their efforts to examining male
serialists (Cameron and Fraser 1987; Caputi 1987; 1989; 1990:
Chesler 1993).

Other analysts disagree. They point out that there is
strong empirical evidence which not only indicates that there are
female serialists, but that there is sufficient data upon which to
begin theorizing about female serial murderers. For example,
Hickey's (1997) data shows that female serialists account for
almost 15% of known serialists operating in the United States from
1800 to 1995. These percentages of male and female killers are
comparable to the percentages of male and female murderers found
among one time killers. Similarly, Keeney and Heide (1994),
Cluff, Hunter and Hinch (1997), and Scott (1992) have shown that
theorizing about female serialists using the existing data base can
tell us much about the overall social, cultural and political
context within which serial murder takes place.

Serialists kill in gender specific ways. Males are more
likely than females to use brute force. According to Hickey’s
(1997) data, males are significantly more likely to shoot,
strangle/suffocate, stab, or bludgeon their victims. Only 5% of
males use poisons to kill. On the other hand, women are more
likely to use poison to kill (35% use poison only, and 45% use
poison in combination with some other means of killing). It is
also true that males are significantly more likely to kill
strangers than are females, and that females are significantly more
likely to kill family members than are males (see the next section
on the relation between victim and offender). Finally, their
motivations for killing differ. According to Hickey (1997:p.
153,218) the most frequent motives for male serialists are ”sex
sometimes“ (46%), "control sometimes“ (29%), and ”money
sometimes“ (19%). For female serialists, the most frequent
motives are ”money sometimes“ (47%), ”money only“ (27%), and
”control sometimes“ (13%). The data, therefore, would seem to
imply that gender roles are important in terms of understanding how
and why serialists kill.

Excluding female serialists from either the definition of
serial murder, or even from study samples, has resulted in an
unnecessary and unscholarly limitation of inquiry. Including
female serialists allows for the examination of the role played
by socio-cultural and socio-structural factors in creating serial
murderers. That is, it points the way to extending the explanation
for serial murder to areas other the individual pathology.

The Victim and Offender are Strangers

Eggers’s (1991) definition of serial murder suggests that
typically there is no relation between the serialist and
the victim. There is, of course some basis in fact to substantiate
this claim. Male serialists are more likely to kill strangers than
they are to kill persons known to them. However according to
Hickey (1997), almost one third of a male serialist's victims are
persons known to him. Furthermore, a female serialist is as likely
to kill persons known to her as she is to kill strangers. This
suggests that Egger’s limitation that the typical serial murder
victim is a stranger is unwarranted and misleading. While it is
true that male serialists kill significantly more strangers than
persons known to them, it is clearly unwarranted to exclude from
the definition of serial murder the possibility that some victims are
persons known to the offender. As Hickey (1997) says, assuming
that the victim and the offender are strangers amounts to
speculation rather than scholarly analysis.

Not for Material Gain

It has been common practice for analysts to exclude events
in which the killer profits financially from the crime.
Consequently, many studies have excluded professional contract
killers, as well as so called black widows(women who kill
husbands sequentially), simply because the motivation for the
killings is assumed to be different from the ”true“ serial killer.
This exclusion is usually based on the assumption that serialists
are extrinsically motivated while ”real“ serialists are
intrinsically motivated. For example, Leyton writes:

This multiple murder for profit is merely one
form of making a living, one in which the murder is
incidental to the goal. Those who practice this
"profession" would undoubtedly follow another if they
were offered more money. We are concerned with those who
appear to kill for its own sake, those for whom
killing alone is the apparent goal (1986:24-
25).

However, Gresswell and Hollin (1994) point out some
analysts claiming to exclude extrinsically motivated killers have
actually included them. Holmes and DeBurger (1988) claimed to
exclude killers who kill for profit, but their classification of
hedonistic-comfort killers implies an extrinsic reason, i.e.,
for comfort. Gresswell and Hollin (1994:5) also argue that
murders committed to "...prevent a sexual assault victim
identifying an assailant, may also be considered extrinsically
motivated acts." Thus it would appear that the exclusion of
extrinsically motivated killers is not complete. More important,
Hickey (1997) notes that almost one quarter of the male serialists,
one third of the team serialists (two or more killers working
together), and one half of the female serialists in his sample
killed for money. Therefore, to assume that serial killers do not
kill for financial gain once again amounts to speculation. The
evidence clearly demonstrates that some serialists kill for profit.
This means that excluding some serialists, such as professional
assassins or hit men is unjustified and unjustifiable
without more careful study.

It could be argued that the exclusion of extrinsically
motivated killers, especially those who kill for profit, amounts to
an ideological conception of serial murder. It is ideological
because it excludes evidence on the basis of preconceived beliefs
that serial killers are intrinsically motivated, while ruling out
. priori that serial killing may be the product of socio-cultural and/or socio-structural variables.

The Victims Are Powerless

There is good reason to question the assumption that the
victims of serial murder are powerless people. Leyton (1986)
argues the modern multiple murderer is attempting to level the
social structure. Multiple murderers of previous eras had been
members of the higher strata who
primarily killed members of the
lower strata.
By contrast, the modern multiple murderer comes from the
lower strata and kills representatives of the higher strata.
Leyton explains:

The major homicidal form of the modern era is
the man who straddles the border between then upper-working
class and the lower-middle class.
Occasionally...they continue a metaphor from the earlier
era and discipline unruly prostitutes and runaways. Much
more commonly, however, they punish those above them in
the system -- preying on unambiguously middle-class
figures such as university women (1986:297).

It should be noted here that Leyton’s reference to
university women as representatives of powerful interests must be
considered from the point of view of the serialist. Some male
serialists see university women as powerful. These killers may
perceive that they are disadvantaged relative to university women
because these women are able to do something the killers are unable
to do, or are prevented from doing. For example, Leyton suggests
that Ted Bundy was motivated to kill young women, many of whom were
students, because they represented
those forces which were
blocking his social mobility. He was avenging his failed
university career in law by killing those people he perceived to be
in a more powerful position than himself.

In attempting to move the discussion of serial murder
toward consideration of structural factors, Leyton agrees with
feminist analysts of serial murder (Cameron and Frazer 1987;
Caputi 1987; 1989; 1990). Both seek to expand the study of
serial murder beyond examination of individual pathology. They
argue there is a connection between social structure and serial
murder. Leyton looks toward class structures, while feminists
examine patriarchy. Expanding the definition in this way allows
the analyst to assess the societal contexts which shape and nurture
individual pathologies.

Measuring the Menace

No research technique is foolproof. Whether qualitative or
quantitative techniques are used, both methods pose
particular problems for
the researcher of serial killers. This section examines these problems showing how
misuse and misapplication of research techniques contributes to the stereotypes
associated with serialists.

Problems With Qualitative Data

Any textbook on qualitative research lists
potential
methodological problems. These problems include difficulties in
gaining access to subjects, difficulties with the reliability of
the information provided by the subjects, and the possibility of
interviewer bias or contamination. We will examine each of these issues
as they impact upon the study of serial murder.

Gaining access to research subjects is a problem for all
researchers, but is particularly difficult when studying serial
murder. Access to subjects may be denied for many different
reasons. Access may be restricted by penal institutions, or by the
killer's lawyer(s) (O'Reilly-Fleming 1995). Sometimes subjects
simply refuse to cooperate. They may not see an advantage for
themselves in agreeing to be interviewed. Even when they agree to
be interviewed, many may be unwillingly or unable to talk freely
about their crimes (Holmes 1989).

Quite apart from problems of gaining access, there are
problems with reliability. It is common for researchers to
inadvertently bias or contaminate the data. Hickey (1997) argues
that some researchers conducting lengthy interviews with serialists
may become too close to their subjects. They may unconsciously
contribute to the notoriety of the killer, providing him or her
with the publicity he or she seeks. Sometimes serial killers
engage in gaming, telling the interviewer what they think the
interviewer wants to hear (Hickey 1997). Others may revel in the
glory and attention by making themselves and their stories fit the
image. They may confess to more murders than they committed.
Jenkins (1994) argues that both Ted Bundy and Henry Lee Lucas
engaged in such behaviour. Clearly, if not properly attuned
to the killer's
attempts to manipulate the interviewer, the interviewer may pass on
the killer's misinformation.

An additional problem with data gathered via
interviews is that these interviews are retrospective.
result, they demand that the
killer be able to accurately recall and reflect upon his past. This causes
additional problems and the interviewer must consider the length of
time that has passed between the murders and the interview.
"Hindsight can easily distort reality and mold it to the
psychological needs of the offender (Hickey 1997:231)."
Interviewers should expect distorted explanations and thinking from
serial killers.

Interviews, of course, are not the only sources of data.
For example, Leyton (1986) relied upon newspaper accounts,
diaries, case studies, criminal justice system records, and other
archival information. None of these sources is completely
reliable. Newspaper accounts, for example, sometimes provide extensive details
about specific serialists. These details are usually based on
trial testimony, but may sometimes be supplemented with other
information obtainable through investigative journalism.
Journalists, however, are notorious for reporting hearsay. They
are often accused of being more interested in getting a story than
in disseminating accurate information. The news media are also
renowned for an emphasis on sensational crimes to the exclusion of
more mundane murders which do not fit the stereotype (Jenkins 1994:
Kiger 1990). Thus, newspaper accounts are a major source of
misinformation.

Biographies, diaries and case studies, while rich in
descriptive data, may also be sources of misinformation. Criminal
records, trial transcripts, abstracts and archival information are
as reliable as the information they contain and there is little
reason to believe these sources contain all the necessary information.
Further, a case history may be selected for its sensational
appeal. This is clearly what led to the production of at least
four mass market books (Burnside and Cairns 1995; Davey 1994; Pron
1995; Williams 1996) claiming to give the true story of the
exploits of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. As Ratner (1995) puts
it, specific cases draw attention because their exotic nature
appeals to the voyeur.
The problem here is that these case studies are skewed
in favour of stereotypical images or public
expectations of the characteristics of serialists.
By failing to critically assess the sampling bias which
enters into the selection of "suitable" material, stereotypes
are perpetuated. A more critical assessment of this material
may lead to the conclusion that they do not hold any theoretical interest.

For example, the books published in an attempt to cash in
on the notoriety of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka offer slightly
different versions of the events, and significantly different
explanations for why Homolka did what she did (Burnside and Scott
1995; Davey 1994; Pron 1996; Williams 1996). Even though these
books base their accounts on court evidence, readers would find it
confusing that the evidence presented
from one book to the other is sometimes contradictory.
As for Homolka’s roles in the murders,
the authors clearly disagree on motivation. Davey, Pron
and Burnside and Cairns portray Homolka as an abused woman who
killed while under the domination of an abusive, violent husband.
Williams, as well as Pearson (1997), another commentator on this
case, implies that Homolka was far from a
submissive and abused woman. These authors argue
that she was an active and willing participant in the deaths of the
three school girls. The point here is that even books based on similar
records, including court records, are not necessarily going to give
the reader an accurate interpretation of the data.

Problems With Quantification

Most experts agree that the number of serial murders and of
serial murderers is unknown (Egger 1990a; Gresswell and Hollin
1994; Hickey 1997; Holmes 1989; Holmes, Hickey and Holmes 1991;
Jenkins 1994; Maxfield 1989; O'Reilly-Fleming 1996). It has been
estimated that between 10 and 500 serial killers are active at any
time in the United States (Egger 1990a; Kiger 1990; O'Reilly-
Fleming 1996). In Canada, estimates range from 5 to 30 (Ratner
1996). The variation in these estimates can be attributed to a variety of problems
with data sources: arbitrary definitions; small samples; samples
biased toward only known/apprehended serial killers; and samples
relying upon secondary sources such as biographies or newspapers.
These alternative data sources have been used primarily because
official data are not reliable.

For example, the FBI collects data from law enforcement
agencies across the United States and publishes it in the Uniform Crime Reports(UCR). The Supplemental Homicide
Report(SHR), part of the UCR, provides additional information
about victims, offenders and circumstances. The intention is to
reflect all criminal offenses that come to the attention of the
police.

The data, however, are incomplete and unreliable. First,
because reporting is voluntary, the information is incomplete
(Kiger 1990; Williams and Flewelling 1987). Second, there may be
organizational pressures within particular police jurisdictions not
to alarm the public about the possible existence of a serial killer
in that area. This may prevent reporting and/or effect homicide
classification procedures (Kiger 1990; Williams and Flewelling
1987). Third, homicide data records only those crimes known to the
police. Missing persons and undiscovered bodies are excluded.

The importance of this third observation is
that many unidentified bodies are found each year and
there have been attempts to link the number of
unidentified bodies to serial murder. Annual estimates
in the United States place the number of unidentified
dead between 4,000 and 5,000. Some authors claim that
many of these are victims of serial killers. For
example, Radford (1992) estimates that most the 3,500
unidentified female victims of murder each year in the
United States are victims of serial murder. This is an
unwarranted claim which Jenkins has clearly denounced:

The problems with this statistic were, or
should have been apparent. If, in fact, 3,500 females
fell victim to serial killers each year during the mid-
1980s, this would have accounted for some 70 percent of
all murders of women and girls. Apart from being
implausible as it stands, this figure would also leave
little room for the domestic murders that, according to
the femicide literature, are believed to be so endemic a
problem (1994:142).

The actual proportion of the unidentified dead who
are the
victims of serial murder is unknown (Hickey 1997: Egger 1990a;
Jenkins 1994: Kiger 1990). In the United States, it is not
mandatory for coroners to report the discovery of unidentified
bodies to a centralized data bank. Also, coroners need no formal
training for the position. Their reports to the FBI may contain
unreliable information about the cause and time of death (Kiger 1990). Further, cause of death cannot be determined from
badly decomposed bodies, which are then unlikely to be counted as
homicides. Sometimes, bodies may be found where cause of death can
be classed as homicide, but the victims were killed in previous
years. These victims are not likely to be submitted as additions
to a revised homicide count for that year (Kiger 1990). Moreover,
many victims of a serial killer may not be classed as homicides at
all. They may be assumed to have died of natural causes (eg.
nursing home and hospital patients).

As a result, homicide rates are underestimated and the
consequent analyses are inaccurate (Jenkins 1994; Kiger 1990;
Williams and Flewelling 1987). UCR/SHR data reflect only the
number of deaths labelled as homicide by the police. They do not
necessarily reflect the actual number of deaths in a given year.
At this point, numerical estimates of serial killers and victims
based on this data are questionable. Thus, it is unwarranted to
assume that serial killing is on the rise as has sometimes been
claimed. It is also inaccurate to attribute most stranger or
unknown homicides to serial murder. This limits our ability to
understand the nature and extent of the problem, and or course,
inflated estimates provoke fear of a serial killer epidemic.

A further complication arises in the inability to use
existing data sources to make cross cultural or cross national
comparisons. Although serial murderers are known to exist in most
countries, there have been few attempts at cross national
comparisons. Cross national analysis is impeded by definitional
problems, differential reporting patterns, and data
inaccessibility. Thus, more effort must be put into improved
reporting standards (a point which will be discussed below) to
allow for systematic comparison if we wish to advance understanding.

From all this is should be
clear that traditional social science data
sources have not been useful in the study of serial murder. Kiger
succinctly states the dangers of the dearth of quantitative data:

Although idiographic research provides useful
insights into the lives and possible individual-level
etiology of serial murderers, it is also important to
accurately quantify the problem. Without accurate
quantitative assessments of the extent of serial murder,
we will be unable to develop informed typologies,
theories, and policy decisions. Indeed, we run the risk
of creating a social problem, the magnitude of which may
be greatly exaggerated (1990:35-36).

Thus, while the literature provides no decisive answer to
questions regarding the number of serial killers or the number of
victims of serial killers, it purports to do so. In doing so, it
often uses only those data which deal with narrowly defined acts of
serial murder, i.e., the most sensational cases. As Kiger (1990)
says, we must be careful not to allow sensational, unreliable
statistics, premised on misleading stereotypes, to obstruct or
misinform our analysis. Given these problems, researchers must be
held accountable for the numbers they present. As Jenkins (1994)
argues, moral panics about serial murder are frequently the product
of ideological campaigns for law and order. For example, Jenkins
argues that the moral panic over serial murder that arose during
the 1970s in the United States

...coincided exactly with a strong political
trend toward a reevaluation of the etiology of social
problems, a general tendency toward viewing wrong-doing
and deviance as issues of personal sin and evil rather
than social or economic dysfunction
(1994:9).

Finally, since academics contribute to police
investigations, data must be accessible. O'Reilly-Fleming (1996)
argues that the creation of an accessible international data base
could lead to the development of cooperative communication networks
between law enforcement agencies and academia. This could
potentially improve reporting habits, as well improve detection and
apprehension of serial killers.

The Problem With Typologies

The stereotype of a sexually sadistic killer has been in no
small measure perpetuated by the typologies used to describe the
typical serial killer. Typologies are attempts to describe
the patterns by which serial killers go about their business.
While they may be used to categorize individual killers, they are
usually directed toward the more general task of understanding
overall killing patterns among serialists. These efforts to
organize and classify serial murder have some major flaws.

Creating Typologies

According to Hickey (1991), three assumptions about the
core characteristics of serial killers influence the development of
typologies: serial killing is psychogenic, the locus of motives is
internal, and the reward for killing is psychological. As we
noted about the definition of serial murder, these assumptions
exclude those serialists who are externally motivated (e.g. hit men,
terrorists, politically or religiously motivated killers, and black
widows). Many cases do not fit easily into existing categories, or
straddle several typologies (Gresswell and Hollin 1994; O'Reilly-
Fleming 1996). Typologies overlap and conflict with one another.
Some are based on motivation while others are based on psychiatric
diagnosis. Still others use the criminal offense, or the crime scene, or
the geographical mobility of the offender as the basis for
classification (Gresswell and Hollin, 1994; Hickey, 1997; Holmes,
1989). The inevitable conclusion we draw from this
is that there is no such thing as a typical serial
killer. As a result, classification attempts are
misleading and tend to reinforce the stereotypes.

Gresswell and Hollin (1994) claim that situational and
random factors must be taken into account. When this is done,
typologies begin to look less useful. For example, typologies
based on motivation assume that serial killers always act according
to a plan. In real life, random, unpredictable environmental
factors come into play. For example, David Berkowitz ran away
after his first victim screamed and bled. He had not anticipated
this and so bought a gun for future attacks (Gresswell and Hollin
1994). Moreover, serial killers may have different motives for
different victims. Their motives may change over time, and there
may be a progression in the killings (personality degeneration,
less and less planning, time between episodes decreases, violence
increases) (Gresswell and Hollin, 1994; Holmes, 1989). For
example, Dennis Nilsen killed a man in the middle of his killing
sequence simply because the man was annoying and in his way
(Gresswell and Hollin 1994).

Thus, in order for typologies to be useful, Gresswell and
Hollin (1994) claim that they must be flexible enough to account
for both psychological and random environmental variables, while
also recognizing there is a process to serial killing. To date, no
typology is capable of meeting these needs.

Discussion/Conclusion

The stereotype of a sexually sadistic killer has become
paradigmatic in scholarly efforts to understand serial killers.
Definitions, research methods, and typologies reflect this
paradigm. Serialists who do not match the stereotype are excluded
on arbitrary grounds. Methodological problems associated with data
sources manipulate and distort the findings. Official statistics
are plagued by incomplete reporting and inaccurate classification.
Leyton (1996:37-38) argues that criminologists have forgotten that
ideology is the enemy of science: ”...criminological writings tend
to be factious, partisan and combative." The study of violence, in
general, has become extraordinarily politicized, with various
competing interest groups struggling for positional dominance (Jenkins 1994; Leyton 1996). The
structure of the academic enterprise and crude methodological tools
are seen as fundamental to the dogmatism that plagues academia.

Even the most elementary scientific notions,
such as the basic requirement that there be an intimate
connection between data and theory, between observation
and conclusion, are now implicitly dismissed as old-
fashioned and unnecessary, or at best anti-progressive...
Reality is now deemed no longer necessary, a vulgar
impediment to the flow of masterful ideology (Leyton
1996:37-38).

An expanded definition of serial killers, improved
reliability of information sources and research methodologies,
information sharing, and eradication of the lust killer stereotype
will contribute to an enriched understanding. Investing resources
in scholarly study can contribute to law enforcement efforts to
understand the lust killer stereotype, overcome linkage blindness,
and facilitate a paradigm shift (Egger 1990b). These changes are
essential if policy decisions and intervention strategies are to be
informed by a reliable empirical data.